> The common argument seems to be that men got to vote because they also were the ones who had to go to war (which would be started by the elected government).

> The common argument seems to be that men got to vote because they also were the ones who had to go to war (which would be started by the elected government). So the fear was that women would massively vote in favor of war because they didn't have to fight it? As if women aren't affected by war, they lose fathers, husbands, and sons, and if they're on the losing side they have no weapons to defend themselves from an invading army and might get killed or raped. Besides, by that reasoning old and infirm men shouldn't be allowed to vote either. The "women don't go to war" argument sounds more like something made up after the fact to justify a situation than something that was actually considered when the decision was made. > While you don't have to accept the argument (and in fact history has rejected it), I'd say it also isn't completely without merit. It would at least be consistent if only those who are eligible for military service and those who have served in the military were allowed to vote, but somehow I suspect 'has a penis' was the actual standard used. > (A counter to this would be to say "but women weren't even allowed to go to war" - true, but again it is debatable who had the shorter end of the stick there. And maybe women at war simply wasn't practical, given the nature of warfare in the past). Dogs aren't allowed to vote either, and most of them never have to work, have people to take care of them, and don't have to fight in wars. When comparing humans to dogs, it is debatable who has the shorter end of the stick. But I don't know anyone who seriously would want to be a dog. Historically, did many men express a desire to be a woman, so that they could clean the house, birth many children, and be considered too incompetent to vote or otherwise get involved in politics? If not, I guess they didn't actually consider their end of the stick to be the shorter one, regardless of what one might debate today. > Besides, there were not really that many years when only men were allowed to vote. For most of history, neither men nor women were allowed to vote. I'm not sure where you are going with this. If up to five years ago women weren't allowed to use electricity, would you also argue that a "historical warped perception of women that created unjust conditions and treatment" didn't apply, because for most of history, neither men nor women could use electricity? I would think that the fact that everywhere where voting was introduced it was at first limited to men supports the argument that there is a "historical warped perception of women that created unjust conditions and treatment". Otherwise we would also expect to see a number of countries where, at first, women were allowed to vote while men were not. > of course picking isolated examples where women are seemingly worse off than men is also a trusted and tried feminist strategy. What if overall there are some metrics where men are better off, and some where women are better off? How do you compare? You're absolutely right! If only men and women had equal rights and opportunities, then we wouldn't have to argue about who is better off. If only there was some kind of social movement to accomplish this. I don't think you have to agree with all (or even most) feminist viewpoints today to admit that historically, women had fewer rights than men, and feminism has done a lot to improve that. You don't have to agree with "all sex is rape" to think that it's a good idea for women to have a right to vote. It looks to me like you're so caught up in the 'us versus them' mentality that you reject everything about feminism to the point where you look as unreasonable as the hard-core feminists you so despise.